PDA

View Full Version : This is remarkable... Watson Supercomputer dominates Jeopardy


Taco John
02-17-2011, 12:13 AM
This blows me away. Jump to 4:40 to see the game in action.

<IFRAME title="YouTube video player" height=390 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fyPlhd7BE3w" frameBorder=0 width=480 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Lev Vyvanse
02-17-2011, 12:16 AM
Watched some of the game. It would have been more impressive if it was not getting it's info from a text file.

Ratboy
02-17-2011, 01:04 AM
Not impressed.

Bronco Boy
02-17-2011, 01:26 AM
Now let's use it for war! We can obtain all the oil in Oiloilistan!

cutthemdown
02-17-2011, 01:27 AM
you should be impressed its a big jump in how computers can use data to solve problems. The application could expand to who knows what.

cutthemdown
02-17-2011, 01:28 AM
Now let's use it for war! We can obtain all the oil in Oiloilistan!

No but it could someday help us predict terrorist activity by analyzing data that his mountains high. It could acutally end up having tons of uses.

Bronco Boy
02-17-2011, 01:29 AM
No but it could someday help us predict terrorist activity by analyzing data that his mountains high. It could acutally end up having tons of uses.

Let's hope it corrects your grammar and spelling someday.

Lev Vyvanse
02-17-2011, 01:45 AM
Let's hope it corrects your grammar and spelling someday.

No. You're missing the point. It will actually be able to extract some sort of meaning from his posts.

HAT
02-17-2011, 01:57 AM
you should be impressed its a big jump in how computers can use data to solve problems. The application could expand to who knows what.

3. ? ? ? ?
4. Profit

Los Broncos
02-17-2011, 02:13 AM
Let's hope it corrects your grammar and spelling someday.

Ah man that was cold.

myMind
02-17-2011, 02:14 AM
for anybody missing the point...

the algorithms used to program a computer that can dominate the all-time human champion of ANYTHING should scare the **** out of you...

The thought that a mutlitude of brilliant organic minds(IBM) spent years and years developing an artificial intelligence that quickly surpassed its creators is disturbing to say the least.

extralife
02-17-2011, 02:24 AM
if by "quickly surpassed its creators" you mean "I am stupid and that is not at all what happened," then yes.

to use an example: the ****iest computer in the world is far better at calculating mathematical data and forumlae then you are or could ever be. and yet these computers have no mathematical capabilities whatsoever.

zillion dollar IBM <s>marketing gimmick</s> super computer is simply a couple more steps up that particular ladder. it still doesn't know anything. that it has rudimentary synthetic capabilities is noteworthy, but it is not anything like what you are attempting to attribute to it.

Taco John
02-17-2011, 02:26 AM
Not impressed.

For you:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8r1CZTLk-Gk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hotwheelz
02-17-2011, 02:33 AM
"Hey guys, we've created a computer that can understand human language and use existing information to answer any question you can think of, including questions no one knows the answer to! This has the potential to revolutionize every industry in the world and solve some of society's biggest problems!"

Internet guy 1: Not impressed.

Internet guy 2: More porn!

IBM: But guys...

Internet guy 2: SEX ROBOTS!

IBM: I guess we could use it to help create sex robots, but that would be a was--

Internet guy 1: AWESOME

Internet guy 2: DO IT!

IBM: But... cancer, world hunger, energy...

Internet Guy 2: SEX ROBOTS.

IBM: *sigh*

extralife
02-17-2011, 02:36 AM
the other people know the answers too; watson can simply hit the buzzer faster than they can.

to say that this computer is anything like "answering questions that no one knows the answer to" is ridiculous. all of the answers were, in some way or another, inputed into the computers memory banks. what it is doing is not answering questions. what it is doing is synthetically analyzing key words in speech patterns and relating them to enormous data banks. which is very similar in principle to what the computer you typed your garbage on can also do.

HAT
02-17-2011, 02:36 AM
if by "quickly surpassed its creators" you mean "I am stupid and that is not at all what happened," then yes.

to use an example: the ****iest computer in the world is far better at calculating mathematical data and forumlae then you are or could ever be. and yet these computers have no mathematical capabilities whatsoever.

zillion dollar IBM <s>marketing gimmick</s> super computer is simply a couple more steps up that particular ladder. it still doesn't know anything. that it has rudimentary synthetic capabilities is noteworthy, but it is not anything like what you are attempting to attribute to it.

Exactly....Engadget sums it up nicely as well.

In case you missed it, Watson won again tonight. He even got the Final Jeopardy question correct this time, a multi-layered reference to Bram Stroker that he bet $10k on. His final score over the two rounds ended up at $77,147 (Watson has this thing for betting strange amounts that usually end in a 7), while Ken Jennings got $24,000 and Brad Rutter did $21,600 -- both humans saving a bit of face after last round's stunning defeat. Watson will be giving his $1,000,000 winnings to charity.

So, a few things:

1. We're totally surprised, in a larger theoretical sense, that a computer could win at Jeopardy.
2. We're totally not surprised that Watson, the system built by IBM over the past few years at the expense of millions of dollars, actually succeeded at winning at Jeopardy.
3. Computers have better reflexes than humans, as it turns out.
4. Deal with it.

If you can't tell, we're having a little trouble processing all the emotions brought on by a Jeopardy win from IBM's Watson supercomputer. It's obvious that IBM's DeepQA research program has developed some of the most sophisticated natural language AI known to man. At the same time, Jeopardy questions aren't really that hard. As evidenced by watching these Watson-dominated matches, all three contestants knew the answer most of the time, but Watson was just quicker on the draw. Of course, it's no surprise that computers have quicker reflexes (even with the "handicap" of having to mechanically press the same style of clicker as Meatbag 001 and Meatbag 002), so why shouldn't Watson get to use his inbuilt advantage to the utmost? It seems like a fair fight to us.

The question of "who is better at Jeopardy" aside (trust us, it's Watson), the larger implications for the human race and our computer sidekicks are still unclear. Watson can currently answer simple trivia questions, sometimes couched in puns or minor riddles, with a decent level of accuracy. The answers themselves are no more than a high school student with Wikipedia access could pull off, and Watson has no way of knowing for sure when he's right. He lacks a solid, computer-readable database of "facts" like a Wolfram Alpha, or the incredible reasoning abilities of a human, instead relying on statistical analysis of vast amounts of text. When it comes to Jeopardy, it turns out to be Good Enough, which is actually a pretty incredible achievement in the world of AI, and we're sure we'll be finding out soon what other applications IBM thinks Watson is Good Enough at -- they're thinking everything from healthcare to the financial industry. Still, we're sure some of us clicker-speed-nit-pickers will remain unimpressed. Make sure to check out the Engadget Show tomorrow, where we'll be chatting up the creators of Watson about all this, but for now... 01000011 01101111 01101110 01100111 01110010 01100001 01110100 01110011 00100001

listopencil
02-17-2011, 02:47 AM
No. You're missing the point. It will actually be able to extract some sort of meaning from his posts.


Ouch.

kappys
02-17-2011, 02:50 AM
"Hey guys, we've created a computer that can understand human language and use existing information to answer any question you can think of, including questions no one knows the answer to! This has the potential to revolutionize every industry in the world and solve some of society's biggest problems!"

Internet guy 1: Not impressed.

Internet guy 2: More porn!

IBM: But guys...

Internet guy 2: SEX ROBOTS!

IBM: I guess we could use it to help create sex robots, but that would be a was--

Internet guy 1: AWESOME

Internet guy 2: DO IT!

IBM: But... cancer, world hunger, energy...

Internet Guy 2: SEX ROBOTS.

IBM: *sigh*

I'm pretty sure the nerds who master the art of AI know full well the value of sex robots.

Hotwheelz
02-17-2011, 02:54 AM
the other people know the answers too; watson can simply hit the buzzer faster than they can.

to say that this computer is anything like "answering questions that no one knows the answer to" is ridiculous. all of the answers were, in some way or another, inputed into the computers memory banks. what it is doing is not answering questions. what it is doing is synthetically analyzing key words in speech patterns and relating them to enormous data banks. which is very similar in principle to what the computer you typed your garbage on can also do.

IBM: But this is just the first step, the potential is infinite! We've solved a huge problem in our field!

Internet Guy 1: But can it have sex?

IBM: No, but...

Internet Guy 2: Meh.

listopencil
02-17-2011, 02:55 AM
if by "quickly surpassed its creators" you mean "I am stupid and that is not at all what happened," then yes.

to use an example: the ****iest computer in the world is far better at calculating mathematical data and forumlae then you are or could ever be. and yet these computers have no mathematical capabilities whatsoever.

zillion dollar IBM <s>marketing gimmick</s> super computer is simply a couple more steps up that particular ladder. it still doesn't know anything. that it has rudimentary synthetic capabilities is noteworthy, but it is not anything like what you are attempting to attribute to it.

Yes, but intuitively speaking it seems reasonable to assume that there is some sort of threshold between data storage and true intelligence that may be crossed at some point. Even putting that issue aside this a profound change in the way that humans and computers interact with each other.

extralife
02-17-2011, 02:59 AM
there is absolutely no "threshold" between data storage (or even data <i>interpretation</i>) and intelligence. that's a ridiculous statement.

cutthemdown
02-17-2011, 03:03 AM
Spell check? Come on computers been doing that for years!

listopencil
02-17-2011, 03:04 AM
there is absolutely no "threshold" between data storage (or even data <i>interpretation</i>) and intelligence. that's a ridiculous statement.

No, actually you don't know that.

extralife
02-17-2011, 03:07 AM
yes I do

or at the very least I know <i>a lot</i> more about it than you do.

listopencil
02-17-2011, 03:08 AM
yes I do

or at the very least I know <i>a lot</i> more about it than you do.

Highly doubtful.

serious hops
02-17-2011, 03:10 AM
for anybody missing the point...

the algorithms used to program a computer that can dominate the all-time human champion of ANYTHING should scare the **** out of you...

The thought that a mutlitude of brilliant organic minds(IBM) spent years and years developing an artificial intelligence that quickly surpassed its creators is disturbing to say the least.

Glad I'm not the only one who's seen Terminator and The Matrix.

Did they really have to give it a ****in' name?

LOL

Broncomutt
02-17-2011, 03:10 AM
NOVA ran a documentary called The Smartest Computer in the World last week about Watson. It details why this such an achievment and it's fascinating because it sort of documents Watson learning. It's win really is a marvel of human engineering.

I watched the third match, its not like Ken and Brad didn't know the answers to many of the questions, you could see that Watson was just beating them at buzzing in. I thought the humans performed well.

Congrats Watson, congrats IBM.

listopencil
02-17-2011, 03:12 AM
NOVA ran a documentary called The Smartest Computer in the World last week about Watson. It details why this such an achievment and it's fascinating because it sort of documents Watson learning. It's win really is a marvel of human engineering.




Yes it is. I find it amusing that anyone can't see that.

extralife
02-17-2011, 03:17 AM
Highly doubtful.

just keep daisy chaining hard drives bro, you'll eventually end up with that unified field theory

we could appeal to philosophy, psychology, neurology, computer science, or god knows how many other fields to give us dozens of theories on intelligence that would make your suppositions look like the idle musings of a layman that fell victim to a marketing campaign. oh wait.

if your argument is "since we have not created a sentient computer, we cannot possibly know what may or may not lead to sentience, and as such cannot rule anything out" I would tell you: correct. just like I can't rule out the possibility that clicking my heels six times while reading Kant's <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> backwards in Latin during a Lunar eclipse will teleport me to Mars.

listopencil
02-17-2011, 03:26 AM
just keep daisy chaining hard drives bro, you'll eventually end up with that unified field theory

we could appeal to philosophy, psychology, neurology, computer science, or god knows how many other fields to give us dozens of theories on intelligence that would make your suppositions look like the idle musings of a layman that fell victim to a marketing campaign. oh wait.

if your argument is "since we have not created a sentient computer, we cannot possibly know what may or may not lead to sentience, and as such cannot rule anything out" I would tell you: correct. just like I can't rule out the possibility that clicking my heels six times while reading Kant's <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> backwards in Latin during a Lunar eclipse will teleport me to Mars.

Ah, once again you show your true nature: The Arrogant Blowhard. When I watched the video my first reaction was to wonder if this was a fraud, that's how impressive it is. See, the problem here is not that I (and others) are being misled by a marketing campaign. The problem here is that you're just to self involved to consider anything that doesn't fit into your own preconceived notions. Argument? I don't have an "argument". It's not necessary. You can either watch that video and understand what is going on or continue in ignorance. By all means...continue.

bowtown
02-17-2011, 05:11 AM
http://nerdbastards.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/nerd-fight_thumb.jpg

Kaylore
02-17-2011, 06:12 AM
for anybody missing the point...

the algorithms used to program a computer that can dominate the all-time human champion of ANYTHING should scare the **** out of you...

The thought that a mutlitude of brilliant organic minds(IBM) spent years and years developing an artificial intelligence that quickly surpassed its creators is disturbing to say the least.

Why? Man has made machines that are more efficient in every single way since they walked out of a cave. Why is this so "frightening" now?

Wes Mantooth
02-17-2011, 07:10 AM
If you are bent out of shape or freaked out about Watson, this one is for you

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-17-2011, 07:18 AM
Highly doubtful.

Nerd war!

Fedaykin
02-17-2011, 07:48 AM
Brute force applied to a predicate logic machine to make it fast enough to find answers to clues is technically AI, but not particularly impressive.

jhns
02-17-2011, 07:55 AM
"Hey guys, we've created a computer that can understand human language and use existing information to answer any question you can think of, including questions no one knows the answer to! This has the potential to revolutionize every industry in the world and solve some of society's biggest problems!"

Internet guy 1: Not impressed.

Internet guy 2: More porn!

IBM: But guys...

Internet guy 2: SEX ROBOTS!

IBM: I guess we could use it to help create sex robots, but that would be a was--

Internet guy 1: AWESOME

Internet guy 2: DO IT!

IBM: But... cancer, world hunger, energy...

Internet Guy 2: SEX ROBOTS.

IBM: *sigh*

Seriously, what has NASA been working on all these years? We should have sexbots by now.

bronco militia
02-17-2011, 08:01 AM
can someone explain to me why I shoud be impressed by a computer beating humans in a game of trivia?

Broncomutt
02-17-2011, 08:31 AM
can someone explain to me why I shoud be impressed by a computer beating humans in a game of trivia?

Jeopardy "answers" are pretty complex in the way they are phrased. They can contain puns, double meanings, inuendos and other subtleties that aren't natural for a computer, but adult humans take for granted. It understands complexities and nuances of human communication, at least in the Jeopardy context.

As a search engine that retrieves trivia? Yah, who cares.

The ability to understand human speech, analyze it's intent, and respond accurately? There's the reason it's garnered so much media attention.

bronco militia
02-17-2011, 08:33 AM
Jeopardy "answers" are pretty complex in the way they are phrased. They can contain puns, double meanings, inuendos and other subtleties that aren't natural for a computer, but adult humans take for granted. It understands complexities and nuances of human communication, at least in the Jeopardy context.

As a search engine that retrieves trivia? Yah, who cares.

The ability to understand human speech, analyze it's intent, and respond accurately? There's the reason it's garnered so much media attention.

ok...thanks.

bowtown
02-17-2011, 08:44 AM
for anybody missing the point...

the algorithms used to program a computer that can dominate the all-time human champion of ANYTHING should scare the **** out of you...

The thought that a mutlitude of brilliant organic minds(IBM) spent years and years developing an artificial intelligence that quickly surpassed its creators is disturbing to say the least.

How's that Y2K shelter holding up?

extralife
02-17-2011, 09:29 AM
Argument? I don't have an "argument".

I noticed

HAT
02-17-2011, 09:32 AM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7h4baBEi0iA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

enjolras
02-17-2011, 10:03 AM
yes I do

or at the very least I know <i>a lot</i> more about it than you do.

There is certainly some correlation. The AI techniques used in building WATSON rely on a rather large corpus of information. The ability to store and (more importantly) retrieve information from that corpus drives much of what the computer is able to do.

So making the argument that storage bounds limits the ability of WATSON to 'learn' isn't exactly wrong. While I haven't seen what IBM has done specifically in this case, in general the neural networks and genetic algorithms that are probably driving this are most certainly more effective as the information available to it grows.

So saying that there is no correlation is probably wrong.

disclaimer: I'm not necessarily up to date on the cutting edge of this stuff, but I did spend 3 years as a research assistant in autonomous robotics in college.

HorseHead
02-17-2011, 11:51 AM
I know how "Watson" can be defeated easily...unplug him/it...

Smiling Assassin27
02-17-2011, 12:07 PM
Just unplug the damn thing, Jesus Christ!

Sincerely,

Brass Hat

http://www.barrycorbin.com/captures/wargames/wargames_quotes3.jpg

vancejohnson82
02-17-2011, 12:49 PM
I'm still trying to figure out Watson's wagering....there must be some mathematical equation for it, but I don't get it

DrFate
02-17-2011, 12:56 PM
Defining 'intelligence' is difficult in the best of situations. What this system does is certainly a step forward in the field. I hope we can all agree on that.

srphoenix
02-17-2011, 01:02 PM
I watched these episodes as well, very entertaining. The concept of Watson and its capabilities are certainly impressive, but I would still rather have Ken Jennings next to me for a trivia contest than the computer. The only reason Watson won was because it has perfect reaction time. There were quite a few questions throughout the shows that the other contestants answered more quickly but those were ones that Watson did not know the answer and wasn't prepared to answer at all.

TailgateNut
02-17-2011, 01:02 PM
Let's hope it corrects your grammar and spelling someday.


:notworthy


He does have some issues with basics.

their vs they're, your vs you're, etc....

TailgateNut
02-17-2011, 01:06 PM
for anybody missing the point...

the algorithms used to program a computer that can dominate the all-time human champion of ANYTHING should scare the **** out of you...

The thought that a mutlitude of brilliant organic minds(IBM) spent years and years developing an artificial intelligence that quickly surpassed its creators is disturbing to say the least.

The damn thing doesn't have drive, motivation nor will it learn by itself without input by humans.

Until the HMI isn't needed to program, and the MACHINE is able to learn and advance its' knowledge without assistance, it'll remain a MACHINE!

Gort
02-17-2011, 01:20 PM
Watched some of the game. It would have been more impressive if it was not getting it's info from a text file.

if you had seen the NOVA episode about it, you would have been impressed.

http://ibmsystemsmag.blogs.com/you_and_i/2011/02/ibm-watson-nova-episode-and-a-few-details.html

this is a really tough problem that they've been working on. essentially, Watson is a language recognition machine. it's fine tuned to the peculiarities of Jeopardy questions, but it's a major step forward in the algorithms and understanding of conversational spoken/written English. it's impossible to program "rules" for every word or word placement in the English language, so the leap forward these programmers have made is to create a rudimentary "learning" capability in the software, much like a child learns from their mistakes.

the fast searching through the database of information is just a way to retrieve knowledge. understanding "what" knowledge to retrieve and evaluating that knowledge to find the most likely answer is where their work has been focused.

think of the Wright Brothers second or third flight at Kitty Hawk. then think of what sorts of planes are flying today, 100 or so years later.

now imagine what will be built on this research work by IBM (and others) in the coming decades. that's what's interesting. at least this electrical/electronics engineer sees it that way.

:thumbsup:

Gort
02-17-2011, 01:26 PM
for anybody missing the point...

the algorithms used to program a computer that can dominate the all-time human champion of ANYTHING should scare the **** out of you...

The thought that a mutlitude of brilliant organic minds(IBM) spent years and years developing an artificial intelligence that quickly surpassed its creators is disturbing to say the least.

it's not skynet. not yet.

computers have been kicking humans butts in certain applications for decades and decades. that's not what's relevant here. what's relevant is that Watson is a step forward in understanding everyday conversational English. Watson figures out to the best of its ability what the meaning is of the words/questions you ask it. it then tries to answer. that's quite a problem to work on and they still have alot of work to do. but for the specialized sorts of questions asked on Jeopardy, it's pretty good. ask it some other sort of question and it won't be nearly as good.

Archer81
02-17-2011, 01:31 PM
We all know what Watson will lead to...


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-NKqhqIN3Zc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:Broncos:

Dudeskey
02-17-2011, 01:47 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kkyUMmNl4hk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Inkana7
02-17-2011, 01:57 PM
As someone very involved in the quiz world, what Watson did was impressive, but more or less because of Jeopardy's stupid lockout buzzer system. Of course a robot is going to be able to have perfect timing compared to a human, and Jeopardy's questions really aren't that challenging to experienced quiz players.

Now, if it could duplicate this performance at say, ACF Nationals, I'd be more impressed.

Gort
02-17-2011, 02:17 PM
As someone very involved in the quiz world, what Watson did was impressive, but more or less because of Jeopardy's stupid lockout buzzer system. Of course a robot is going to be able to have perfect timing compared to a human, and Jeopardy's questions really aren't that challenging to experienced quiz players.

Now, if it could duplicate this performance at say, ACF Nationals, I'd be more impressed.

i agree about Jeopardy's questions. the questions are clearly dumbed down to appeal to the home audience and it's overly biased toward pop culture.

Jennings has written a sort of blog post about his experience.

http://www.slate.com/id/2284721/

listopencil
02-17-2011, 02:32 PM
I noticed


Frankly I'm surprised that you can find your keyboard, much less notice anything that anyone else types.

That One Guy
02-17-2011, 02:36 PM
Jeopardy "answers" are pretty complex in the way they are phrased. They can contain puns, double meanings, inuendos and other subtleties that aren't natural for a computer, but adult humans take for granted. It understands complexities and nuances of human communication, at least in the Jeopardy context.

As a search engine that retrieves trivia? Yah, who cares.

The ability to understand human speech, analyze it's intent, and respond accurately? There's the reason it's garnered so much media attention.

From what I've seen and read about it, my personal interpretation of it is that it takes each word and basically analyzes all the synonyms for it as well. They talked about it some the first day when they said it hits keywords, phrases, etc then just starts looking for the common factors.

It really is just a very advanced search engine. A smart search engine, if you will. That's probably where the use is most practical. When I used to work in an experimental military unit, one of the very basic tenets was that humans could never be removed from triggers. That'd be the biggest issue here. A thinking computer must always have a human verifying and validating the answer. Any high schooler would've scoffed when Toronto was returned as the answer to a category called US Cities but the super computer was binded by the algorithms programmed to run it.

Gort
02-17-2011, 02:42 PM
From what I've seen and read about it, my personal interpretation of it is that it takes each word and basically analyzes all the synonyms for it as well. They talked about it some the first day when they said it hits keywords, phrases, etc then just starts looking for the common factors.

It really is just a very advanced search engine. A smart search engine, if you will. That's probably where the use is most practical. When I used to work in an experimental military unit, one of the very basic tenets was that humans could never be removed from triggers. That'd be the biggest issue here. A thinking computer must always have a human verifying and validating the answer. Any high schooler would've scoffed when Toronto was returned as the answer to a category called US Cities but the super computer was binded by the algorithms programmed to run it.

there's quite a bit more to it than that. check and see if you can find the NOVA documentary on it. maybe it's on hulu.

Inkana7
02-17-2011, 02:49 PM
i agree about Jeopardy's questions. the questions are clearly dumbed down to appeal to the home audience and it's overly biased toward pop culture.

Jennings has written a sort of blog post about his experience.

http://www.slate.com/id/2284721/

Yeah, while the Jeopardy! performance of Watson is certainly impressive, it has a long way to go before it could dominate humans on ACF-style questions.

Ken Jennings himself was a very average quizbowl player when he played for the BYU team. But Jeopardy's format allowed him to thrive.

/nerd

Pseudofool
02-17-2011, 02:55 PM
Yes, but intuitively speaking it seems reasonable to assume that there is some sort of threshold between data storage and true intelligence that may be crossed at some point. Even putting that issue aside this a profound change in the way that humans and computers interact with each other.

I assume you know the difference between "Type" and "Degree." The ability to retrieve data from data storage efficiently isn't even on the same spectrum as what we refer to as intelligence or sentience. extralife is right to berate you.

There's in what Watson does that makes me believe that humans can create artificial intelligence. Maybe humans can do it, but certainly an efficient data retrieval machine is not any kind of productive step in that direction.

extralife
02-17-2011, 04:14 PM
There is certainly some correlation. The AI techniques used in building WATSON rely on a rather large corpus of information. The ability to store and (more importantly) retrieve information from that corpus drives much of what the computer is able to do.

So making the argument that storage bounds limits the ability of WATSON to 'learn' isn't exactly wrong. While I haven't seen what IBM has done specifically in this case, in general the neural networks and genetic algorithms that are probably driving this are most certainly more effective as the information available to it grows.

So saying that there is no correlation is probably wrong.

disclaimer: I'm not necessarily up to date on the cutting edge of this stuff, but I did spend 3 years as a research assistant in autonomous robotics in college.

my point is Watson hasn't "learned" anything. we weren't talking about improvements in computer technology--we were talking about sentience.

Chris
02-17-2011, 04:20 PM
is the nova episode available online? I see this having big potential for games in the future. You'll actually be able to talk to characters and they'll understand.

EDIT: Nvm saw you put that there.

thevance_82
02-17-2011, 04:40 PM
Buy IBM stock now !! !Booya!

maven
02-17-2011, 07:10 PM
We all know what Watson will lead to...

:Broncos:
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090411214926/terminator/images/thumb/5/50/John_Henry_Plays.jpg/793px-John_Henry_Plays.jpg

Taco John
02-17-2011, 09:20 PM
the other people know the answers too; watson can simply hit the buzzer faster than they can.

to say that this computer is anything like "answering questions that no one knows the answer to" is ridiculous. all of the answers were, in some way or another, inputed into the computers memory banks. what it is doing is not answering questions. what it is doing is synthetically analyzing key words in speech patterns and relating them to enormous data banks. which is very similar in principle to what the computer you typed your garbage on can also do.

THAT'S THE POINT.

Good grief. This thing is going to be diagnosing patients, not because it is an amazing doctor, but because it will have tomes of data inputted into its memory banks. People who are unimpressed by this are missing the forest through the trees. This is one of mankinds greatest and most useful inventions.

OABB
02-17-2011, 09:48 PM
Since you are all here in this thread, I've been wondering something.

Who would win in a fight between Merlin and gandalf?

Archer81
02-17-2011, 09:56 PM
Since you are all here in this thread, I've been wondering something.

Who would win in a fight between Merlin and gandalf?


It would depend. Gandalf the grey would lose to Merlin, gandalf the white would kick his ass.

:Broncos:

OABB
02-17-2011, 10:00 PM
A 12th level mage elf or a 3rd level volxenwolf?

extralife
02-18-2011, 03:18 AM
THAT'S THE POINT.

Good grief. This thing is going to be diagnosing patients, not because it is an amazing doctor, but because it will have tomes of data inputted into its memory banks. People who are unimpressed by this are missing the forest through the trees. This is one of mankinds greatest and most useful inventions.

computers already do this. and not just "this" in general but this specific thing that you are talking about. when you talk about "quickly analyzing vast quantities of data" you sound like you're living in the 1970's. we done already did that. sure, we get better at it--which is to say we get faster. there are two things vaguely new about this computer. it is able to do this data analysis, in some rudimentary manner, via speech prompts that can vary in complexity (but never vary in form, which is the trick), and it is able to synthesize rather than analyze data packets. I'm not an AI guy or even a computer scientist or engineer at all, so I cannot tell you exactly how advanced these synthetic capabilities are compared to everything else, but that's what is interesting about this machine. and that has nothing to do with all the ridiculous claims being made in this thread.

ghostofjosh
02-18-2011, 04:12 AM
That dude Ken looks like he wants to throw an elbow into Watson

cutthemdown
02-18-2011, 04:29 AM
I know how "Watson" can be defeated easily...unplug him/it...

What are you doing horsehead? This is highly irregular.

cutthemdown
02-18-2011, 04:30 AM
A 12th level mage elf or a 3rd level volxenwolf?

If you made volxenwolf up that is really funny. If it's really a character in a game, even better.

ol#7
02-18-2011, 05:57 AM
I am highly impressed with this super computer...so much so, that I am going to have sex with it. I will post my findings and lnks to the video here.:garcia:

Cmac821
02-18-2011, 06:15 AM
Impressive

Broncomutt
02-18-2011, 07:14 AM
For anybody sore that humans lost to Watson, take heart that the NOVA documentary shows a graph of Jeopardy winners % of questions answered correctly. Ken Jennings is at the top, significantly above Watson. Brad probably was too.

Ask each contestant the same 100 questions and see who has a higher % answered correctly and I'd bet the results slightly favor the humans. I think the lopsided score was speed at buzzing in as some have mentioned.

This doesn't mean I'm not really impressed with Watson though.

MrPeepers
02-18-2011, 07:47 AM
anyone remember the supercomputer in AI, kind of reminds me of that.

bowtown
02-18-2011, 08:05 AM
anyone remember the supercomputer in AI, kind of reminds me of that.

A little. I was thinking more of this though:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ukSvjqwJixw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Cito Pelon
02-18-2011, 08:25 AM
Now let's use it for war! We can obtain all the oil in Oiloilistan!

Use it to run the IRS.

Cito Pelon
02-18-2011, 08:31 AM
Yeah, well, let's see that thing hail the Cash Cab.

Steve Sewell
02-19-2011, 12:13 AM
Jeopardy "answers" are pretty complex in the way they are phrased. They can contain puns, double meanings, inuendos and other subtleties that aren't natural for a computer, but adult humans take for granted. It understands complexities and nuances of human communication, at least in the Jeopardy context.

As a search engine that retrieves trivia? Yah, who cares.

The ability to understand human speech, analyze it's intent, and respond accurately? There's the reason it's garnered so much media attention.

Pretty much this. Its not so impressive that the computer beat the humans, its that it was able to interpret the Jeopardy "answers" so quickly and easily.

extralife
02-19-2011, 01:23 AM
that's just a matter of speed. the thing has 2880 processor cores and 16TB of RAM.

orinjkrush
02-19-2011, 09:42 PM
its not just response time. its also reasoning ability. i just wish we could use it in congresss to fix some problems.

That One Guy
02-19-2011, 10:31 PM
its not just response time. its also reasoning ability. i just wish we could use it in congresss to fix some problems.

The category was US cities and the answer was Toronto.

It has no ability to reason. It has the ability to parse and regurgitate if the right questions are asked in the right way.

Sir_Robin
02-20-2011, 09:27 AM
I just find it sad that it took a computer to have the good sense to work the board from bottom to top. It always boggles my mind to see 2000 dollar questions left on the board at the end of a round.

broncosteven
02-20-2011, 12:20 PM
You guys should check out the PBS Nova episode on how they got Watson to work. I had it on the DVR and didn't watch it until after his 3 shows already aired but it is very impressive.

Looks like we are one step closer to Ray Kurzweils gray matter goo or whatever he calls it.

cutthemdown
02-20-2011, 12:23 PM
It's not that the computer buzzes faster. it's that it figures out the answer faster and buzzes in first. It has nothing to do with the speed it pushes the button.

Perry1977
02-20-2011, 06:12 PM
It's not that the computer buzzes faster. it's that it figures out the answer faster and buzzes in first. It has nothing to do with the speed it pushes the button.

Not entirely sure, but I don't think that the contestants can buzz in until after the host is finished reading the question. I have never seen anyone cut off the question with the answer. So in all likelyhood, all 3 contestants knew the answer by the time the reading was finished. So it's really a matter of who can click the button first after the buzzers are allowed to be pushed.

I attended a forum in College with Ken, and it seemed like he was able to dominate not because of his vast knowledge, but because he had a knack for timing the buzzer click. I also have a friend who appeared on college jeopardy and she was wicked awesome. She would watch a show with a pad of paper and would answer in the 95% range....but once she got on the show she didn't have the quick reaction time to hit the buzzer first, so she got schooled.

Someone in this thread mentioned that the computer was getting the questions via a text format instead of actually listening to the questions like a real contestant. If that's the case, then it probably had it's mind made up by about the second or third word of the reading, then just waited until it heard silence and insta clicked the buzzer.

broncosteven
02-20-2011, 08:00 PM
Someone in this thread mentioned that the computer was getting the questions via a text format instead of actually listening to the questions like a real contestant. If that's the case, then it probably had it's mind made up by about the second or third word of the reading, then just waited until it heard silence and insta clicked the buzzer.

Per the Nova episode I saw on Watson IBM hired a standup comic to fill in as the host. I don't remember how he got the questions, I was watching a 3 year old at the same time.

They did have to store all the Answers locally and disconnect Watson from the internet in order to not give him an advantage, though a computer search engine would be faster than my memory. They downloaded some Encylopedia's and Wikipedia as well as the IMDB DB among others.

The trick to getting Watson to answer the question with a question was more about programming in keyword hits. Watson would search for keywords and comeup with the top4 answers then take the one with the higest probablilities. He did this for each word. The biggest problem came in sarcastic questions involving movie titles that would confuse it. He had to wait for all the words before the buzzer went off.

The 1st time they invited the Jeopardy producers in a live game with past contestants Watson hosed the 1st game but made a game for it in the 2nd. They tweaked the hit's using the same type of logic that Amazon.com and Ebay use to present you with adds for products that they think you would like to buy and this allowed Watson to figure out the context of the question. After that he would got better at the more confusing questions and he did much better and won a spot the next time they had the Jeopardy producers out.

Here is the link to the Nova show:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/will-watson-win-jeopardy.html

The Q&A on the link is interesting also.

orinjkrush
02-20-2011, 08:27 PM
Per the Nova episode I saw on Watson IBM hired a standup comic to fill in as the host. I don't remember how he got the questions, I was watching a 3 year old at the same time.

They did have to store all the Answers locally and disconnect Watson from the internet in order to not give him an advantage, though a computer search engine would be faster than my memory. They downloaded some Encylopedia's and Wikipedia as well as the IMDB DB among others.

The trick to getting Watson to answer the question with a question was more about programming in keyword hits. Watson would search for keywords and comeup with the top4 answers then take the one with the higest probablilities. He did this for each word. The biggest problem came in sarcastic questions involving movie titles that would confuse it. He had to wait for all the words before the buzzer went off.

The 1st time they invited the Jeopardy producers in a live game with past contestants Watson hosed the 1st game but made a game for it in the 2nd. They tweaked the hit's using the same type of logic that Amazon.com and Ebay use to present you with adds for products that they think you would like to buy and this allowed Watson to figure out the context of the question. After that he would got better at the more confusing questions and he did much better and won a spot the next time they had the Jeopardy producers out.

Here is the link to the Nova show:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/will-watson-win-jeopardy.html

The Q&A on the link is interesting also.

you may not like to hear it, but this is reason-ing.

broncosteven
02-20-2011, 08:49 PM
you may not like to hear it, but this is reason-ing.

That doesn't scare me, I think Ray Kurzweil will be proven right eventually. I just hope it isn't in my or my kids life time.

That One Guy
02-20-2011, 09:25 PM
you may not like to hear it, but this is reason-ing.

From Dictionary.com

Reason
–verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
–verb (used with object)
11. to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out ).

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/950c8100-38c3-4bc6-bc48-58fe12d9662e.jpg

Reason - Watson doesn't have it.

extralife
02-20-2011, 09:50 PM
you may not like to hear it, but this is reason-ing.

you bolded a quote about ebay and amazon ad delivery systems and then subsequently called a super computer capable of reasoning. if watson can reason so can the computer you are currently using. get real.

then again, maybe you're using your own special word that no one else knows about, what with the nonsensical hyphen inserted before the suffix.

Agamemnon
02-21-2011, 03:01 PM
So they've built a computer that is really good at data correlation and quickly hitting a buzzer.

O NOES SKYNET IZ 4 REALZ!!! Hilarious!

Chris
02-21-2011, 03:18 PM
From Dictionary.com

Reason
–verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
–verb (used with object)
11. to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out ).

Reason - Watson doesn't have it.

Which is a good reason (no pun intended) to suggest that Watson only enhances our own ability to use machines to understand us (that has lots of applications).

_Oro_
02-21-2011, 03:26 PM
From Dictionary.com

Reason
–verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
–verb (used with object)
11. to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out ).

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/950c8100-38c3-4bc6-bc48-58fe12d9662e.jpg

Reason - Watson doesn't have it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JEjXbLQOOE

Archer81
02-21-2011, 04:14 PM
So they've built a computer that is really good at data correlation and quickly hitting a buzzer.

O NOES SKYNET IZ 4 REALZ!!! Hilarious!


Come with me if you want to live.


:Broncos:

That One Guy
02-21-2011, 04:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JEjXbLQOOE

LOL

Reason - some Americans don't have it either.

BroncosSR
02-21-2011, 06:34 PM
http://i.imgur.com/lZd0q.jpg

extralife
02-21-2011, 07:29 PM
I lold